Democrats' acts threaten wildlife funds

Nov. 16, 2012

Paul Gresky

I was raised in a family of Democrats, so it is very disappointing to see Democrats opposing programs that support wildlife.

Because of the 2013 budget issue, the Democrat-led administration is proposing to siphon off Pittman-Robertson Act revenue from taxes on sporting goods that go to the management and conservation of wildlife to fund other programs. The word “siphon” can be reread as “steal.” Pittman-Robertson funds are specifically designated for wildlife funds only.

The Democrat president and secretary of state have also been supporting proposed United Nations treaties to ban private ownership of firearms such as what hunters and shooters use. The initial treaty was opposed by senators who would not ratify such a treaty, but neither Colorado senator was on the final list of senators opposing the treaty. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton is currently working on a revision that would still eliminate all firearms used in hunting. The consequences of any such international treaty will be the elimination of both hunting license income and the prepaid federal excise tax monies of the Pittman-Robertson Act. It also will eliminate the income to local economies that rely heavily on expenditures by those who hunt.

Should another presidential executive order mandate a U.N. treaty on light firearms, it will prove that senators from all states are ineffectual, have no real purpose and are no longer needed in Washington or anywhere else.

Both Colorado Democrat senators supported the confirmation of the last two Supreme Court candidates who were known to be opposed to the Second Amendment rights of individuals. They have since demonstrated their opposition in a recent Chicago case. Wildlife management funds are derived from purchases that come about as part of Second Amendment rights. The Colorado Senators would have been wise to vote to not confirm those two justices.

Colorado wildlife management is funded almost entirely through taxes, licenses and fees paid by hunters, shooters and sportspeople. Colorado general fund money does not go to support wildlife programs. All others are noncontributors and nonpaying users.

The state of Colorado and the rest of the USA will have to pay the bill for all wildlife funding should the Democrats be successful in their plans to eliminate all currently existing sources of wildlife funds.

Will the taxpayers of Colorado and the USA enjoy the cost of new taxes to pay for all wildlife programs?